Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zortan

  1. Hey everyone, I was recently in Port Townsend and I saw some brand-new Gillig Low Floor buses on Jefferson Transit. My best guess is that 514 and 515 are new 29-footers, and 516 and 517 are new 35-footers. (And on a side note, they all have incredibly uncomfortable hard plastic seats, in start contrast to the cushy seats in the rest of the fleet). However, I can't find any info about these buses, and I'm not sure where to start, as I'd like to add them to the wiki. If anyone has any information or suggestions as to where to look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
  2. I was going to add the same point, I totally agree. However, I can see the value of calling them stations, as I believe both Lonsdale and Phibbs will be on SkyTrain lines. For example, we don't call Bridgeport or Metrotown exchanges, so I think that those are fair names. But overall, I totally agree with you - there's no reason to change the route numbers that have been there (in some cases) for a very long time.
  3. Look, here are my specific complaints about the map. Do what you will with them: Don't model yourself after King County Metro. As someone who rides Metro, it lags behind Translink in almost every way (no offense to them haha). R4 - likely to just be a low-ridership SkyTrain duplicator. I think that the vast majority of commuters would rather take two SkyTrains than one bus, especially if the trip is going to be the same amount of time or even faster since there is no traffic. 32 / 33 - Why not just have individual routes along 33rd and 16th, instead of the weird zig-zag crossover. I get that the Canada Line doesn't have a 16th ave station, but I think that the routes would just be more logical even without the 16th ave bus connecting to the train at that spot R49 - Having a 49th Ave RapidBus isn't a terrible idea, but having it continue past Dunbar to UBC doesn't make sense since it's quite literally duplicating that 41st ave SkyTrain from there on R45 - I don't see the value of a 410 RapidBus when the 410 is not really meant to be a quick, direct connection. Cambie road is pretty far out of the way and your R38 could cover that corridor. Every place where a RapidBus duplicates a SkyTrain. Just trust that people know how to connect at interchanges. So many of the local routes are left as loopy services, and super slow, indirect coverage routes, similar to the current system. As an example, look at Coquitlam north and west of the M Line. I honestly think that that area has potential for many frequent routes that aren't exactly straight lines, but are as straight as possible given the road network, allowing riders to connect between routes on a grid system. I noticed this in North Van as well - for example look at Keith Road - that road has 3 routes serving different parts of it when one route would make more sense. One specific thing that's always bothered me - Grouse Mountain. Getting there from downtown is honestly quite difficult - like why connect onto the 246 (on your map) or 236 (IRL) when you could just have a bus up Cap Road all day and then have the other routes connect to it? I don't see the purpose of the Pemberton Commuter Rail going to Downtown Vancouver - it would make more sense to me for it to just connect to SkyTrain at Park Royal 52, 213, 623 all certainly have some demand off-season, which isn't being addressed. I get your motivation behind the 30-minute or better frequencies on every route, but I just don't see the demand. Like I get that you want to offer decent frequencies to everyone, but there just aren't enough people in rural Pitt Meadows or Maple Ridge to take a half-hourly bus, Some of those routes I'd bring down to hourly or every two hours. I know that it's not ideal for prospective riders, but economically it makes a lot more sense and consolidates riders onto one bus instead of having several very low-ridership trips. This is an issue I have with current Translink as well - the amount of service duplication on Hastings. In addition to rapid services, there are so many frequent locals running down that street as well. SFU SkyTrain - I don't see how a train is going to work in a mountain of that size, but best of luck to you if you can figure out a way to make it work. I'd get rid of the majority of, if not all of the commuter buses. I get your motivation behind them, but they just overcomplicate the network, and factoring in wait times won't increase speed. Riders would probably be much happier just having one choice of bus to get from A to B - it makes the trip easy and simple, with no confusion at all. The 80 (and other such expresses, I might have missed some when looking) doesn't really make much sense. Whether or not you do put that Highway 99 SkyTrain down Granville, the 10 really isn't all that slow, and the 80 would just overcomplicate the network, not to mention it would be competing with the Canada Line. I know I've kind of said this already, but so much of the local network is untouched. I'd highly recommend at looking into rerouting buses to make a faster, more effective network. I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of BRT lines. In my view, RapidBus (which can be seen as a BRT) should only be used on corridors where people travel from end to end, or at least for long distances on the line. However, you seem to have just converted a bunch of high-ridership routes into RapidBus with little consideration for how people travel on those corridors. For example, the 25 is super high-ridership, yes, but a lot of that ridership is from people accessing local stops, not at major intersections. Plus, my previously mentioned concerns about duplication SkyTrain I'd like to see some good streetcars implemented. i think that Ambleside has good potential for it (NIMBYs aside), as do some areas of Surrey and some other fairly straight line popular routes. Whether you call it a streetcar or some form of LRT I don't mind, I just think that it's important to implement more rail transit. I won't comment on the BC transit areas you seem to have taken over, but I just think that those networks are already starting to look very overcomplicated My biggest takeaway from this map is that you need to rethink the priorities here. In my view, the most effective transit networks are those that are simple and frequent. Don't have a million routes, and a million premium services - just keep it simple with the highest-demand corridors becoming rapid transit and the rest being served with good old-fashioned local buses, running at high frequencies.
  4. I'm gonna be brutally honest here, so please don't be too offended by what I have to say. I honestly think that the network is overthought, overworked and overcomplicated. I can see your logic in a lot of the routes and decisions on the map, but sometimes I think the best route is to just leave things simple, maybe not exactly the same as they are now, but not too complicated either. For example, I don't see a use in a King Edward RapidBus considering that the 25 has a lot of local demand, and has the Broadway and 41st Ave corridors on either side. I also don't think the R4 makes much sense, given that 4th is just a few blocks away from Broadway, and would probably just benefit from increased local service. Another example is the R26 continuing downtown despite stopping at the Park Royal SkyTrain Station. I get that having a direct Horseshoe Bay - Downtown route makes some sense for ferry passengers, but I don't think that it's a good move overall transit-wise, duplicating one mode of rapid transit with another. I kind of like the idea of having Translink take over some of the long-distance coach services with the CommuterBus brand. However, I also think that many of those routes don't make a lot of since, for example the YVR - Whistler route, which would easily make more sense using a commuter rail connection to the SkyTrain. I don't like seasonal service - I think that for many seasonal routes there is year-round demand, albeit with demand for a summer / winter frequency boost. Sure, it makes sense on your 198 / 199 (current 150 / 179), where the portion of the route that serves people is already duplicated by a local service, but I don't think that the 423, for example, should be seasonal, as there are people who work along Ferguson Road who currently have no transit options. I also think you misjudged demand in some areas. In North Vancouver, for example, you left some routes as peak-frequent or just basic that honestly would probably benefit from frequent service, like the 212. Other routes, like the 7 are seeing effectively no frequency increase, despite being important routes. Meanwhile, the 408 is seeing 8-minute peak service. I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect there between demand and frequency. Finally, I think that the network is just plain complex, confusing, and not helpful for passengers. For example, I don't see any reason for an express bus down Main Street, which is served quite well by the 3 and can continue to be served that way. The express would likely just take passengers from the SkyTrain or other bus routes, and would overcomplicate things for riders. I think that your map is something that would make a King County Metro planner proud. There's still a bit of a local bus backbone, but the "premium" bus services (commuters, express, rapid) have completely flown out of control and are now covering the entire map. Not to mention the confusing SkyTrain network, which in my opinion has too much duplication between lines and has some lines in places that I just don't see demand (such as the Carvolth - Langley). Now, it's not all bad. I love the formatting of your map (I have no idea how you did so much of it haha, I'm very jealous), and I think that you brought some much-needed service increases to places like Maple Ridge and the South of Fraser regions. I'm sorry though, overall I just can't bring myself to like the concept. I really don't mean to insult you, or throw your work out the window, so to speak, but I just think that it's far too complex, and in many cases, less is really more. Also, I know that I'm not qualified whatsoever as a planner, and I'm always revising my own maps and work constantly, as I learn and grow more or less comfortable with the aspects of my work. So please take my comments with a grain of salt, I will freely admit that I just do this stuff in my free time and haven't had the education or training in this area that many have been lucky enough to have. That being said, if you would like to discuss this with me, I always love talking about planning, especially in the Translink system, and I'd gladly give more specific feedback.
  5. The angle is alright, my personal issue with it would be 1. the "fisheye" / distortion effect from taking the photo that close (which overall isn't a big deal, it's fine) and 2. the resolution - most likely due to forum size limits. if you would like it posted, feel free to PM me with the photo - I believe it doesn't compress as much there.
  6. The photo should include all of the bus, if possible, and if possible a bit of the front as well.
  7. I'm not sure what the issue with using the SkyTrain as the main connector is. I personally think that the purpose of local buses is to feed riders onto BRT and rail lines, rather than to serve as A to B transportation. In my view, it's the only way that transit will ever compete with cars for the convenience factor.
  8. If a route has had a certain model on it for a long time, Pantograph will mark any change whatsoever as an anomaly. For example, in Vancouver it is notorious for marking 19550 (the one Hamilton-base Girardin G5) as an anomaly on Arboc-dominated shuttle routes. Anyway, I agree, it's super cool to see the 70 running trolleys again, I'll have to go ride it and get some photos now that the XT60s are back out on it! Sad part is, this probably means an even sooner end for the DE60LFs, since so many of them were used on the 70.
  9. Definitely agreed about the 10, I don't get why it says downtown to Waterfront, I think most people know that Waterfront is in downtown. Anyway, about the 33 - I don't know if this would work but it would be cool to see the sign just read something like "33 33rd - 16th" so as to include both of the streets it travels along. That might bring its own confusion, but I think it would probably still be more helpful than the current signs.
  10. I feel terrible for the 19 riders right now, that route is a total oven going up Kingsway in the sun, I can't imagine what it's like during a heat wave
  11. I agree about extending the 80 via Boundary, but I'm not sure why it would make sense to have no stops. If ridership is low, then so be it, the stops don't really cost riders anything if they're not used much, but I'm sure they'd be a huge asset to those who could use them.
  12. 229 would be kinda confusing though, since the 230 also runs primarily on Lonsdale (and combines with 229 up to 29th for the FTN designation for Lonsdale)
  13. The issue is, those routes will probably be full come fall, with more and more workplaces and schools returning to in-person operations, so there'll be a lot more commuters than there are now, so the service reductions, while probably a good move budget-wise, are probably gonna sting later.
  14. I would think that all-door boarding would lead to overall higher dwell times at stops that don't have high ridership, since all the doors have to open and close even if it's just one passenger getting on or off.
  15. A more polite response would be appreciated. Anyway, I haven't been able to find much information on the 2021s. If you have any, let me know.
  16. Personally, I'd say that the 601 should simply run more frequently before we start throwing deckers on it. It's pretty infrequent at the moment, so I think adding it to FTN would make more sense than adding deckers.
  17. To me it just looks like inconsistent cleaning, but you could be right.
  18. They're local routes - if you want speed, the R5 skips the extra stops.
  19. Can I please have Clallam Transit rouet 52 'Diamond Point" changed to Clallam Transit route 52 'Diamond Point' due to a spelling error? Thanks!
  20. King County Metro 2808, a 2004 New Flyer DE60LF, passes through downtown Seattle (5th & Jackson) on the 36 to Othello Station via North Beacon Hill.
  21. I submitted mine over a year ago, received feedback, acted on it, and re-applied a few months later, and have heard nothing back since then.
  22. It means either XE40 or XE60, the lowercase x there just means that it could be either model, or both models.
  23. Yep, I saw one at Bridgeport the other day
  24. Not really. Battery buses require more electricity, more weight and a lot more infrastructure. Trolleys don't hinder the efficiency of any system. In fact, they encourage agencies to offer more frequent service along trolley lines as the infrastructure is already there. And, in the long run trolleys are far cheaper to maintain and keep on the road, since the buses themselves need far less work and the overall infrastructure is less maintenance-heavy than a full network of chargers. It also allows us to take advantage of what we have now, which is a fairly large and effective trolley network. Additionally, battery buses and chargers are fairly expensive to purchase, compared to the much cheaper trolleybuses, which use infrastructure we already have installed. They're already zero emissions, so it would make far more sense money-wise to put battery buses in places like Surrey, Coquitlam, New Westminster, the North Shore and others that have no trolleys and then find ways to make some of the most popular and frequent routes in the Vancouver area into trolley routes.
  25. They are better, but there is likely no physical way to make them as efficient and as safe as trolleybuses. Sure, you can get a better battery, but it'll still weigh more than the tiny backups in the trolleys. Sure, you can make the batteries more efficient, but you can't make them as efficient as directly delivering the power from the grid to the bus. Trolleys may not be the newest technology, but remember that the most effective carbon capture technology is a tree. Newer doesn't mean better in every case.
  • Create New...